## Facts

- Eric Ovio Englund was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) in Brazoria County, Texas, and received a probated sentence.
- While on probation, Englund was convicted of another DWI in Cameron County, Texas.
- The State sought to revoke probation and offered a facsimile transmission of a certified copy of the Cameron County DWI judgment to prove the new conviction.
- The faxed exhibit included a transmittal memo and machine header information identifying the Cameron County Clerk as the source and listing the date, time, and source telephone number.
- Each page showed reproduced indicia of certification, including the clerk’s seal, attestation language, and a deputy clerk signature as they appeared on the certified copy.
- Englund objected that a fax of a certified judgment was not properly certified and was inadmissible in place of an actual certified copy.
- The trial court admitted the faxed exhibit and revoked probation; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence governing writings and duplicates, a fax transmission of a certified copy of a judgment is admissible in evidence in lieu of the certified copy from which it was transmitted.

## Decision

- The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed the probation revocation.
- The court held the faxed certified judgment was admissible as a duplicate under the rules governing originals and duplicates.
- The court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting and relying on the faxed document to prove the Cameron County conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Questions about using a faxed reproduction in place of its source document are analyzed under the rules governing originals and duplicates (best-evidence principles), not primarily under authentication rules.
- A certified copy of a public record (such as a judgment) is an admissible form of the record for evidentiary purposes.
- A faxed reproduction of an admissible certified copy may qualify as a “duplicate” that is admissible to the same extent as the original certified copy.
- A duplicate may be excluded only if a genuine question is raised about the authenticity of the source document or if admission of the duplicate would be unfair under the circumstances.
- Admission of documentary evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion; absent concrete indications of alteration or inaccuracy, admitting a faxed duplicate is within the trial court’s discretion.

## Conclusion

The court upheld revocation of probation based on a faxed certified judgment, holding that the evidentiary rules permit admission of such a fax as a duplicate where no genuine authenticity dispute or unfairness is shown.


Englund v. State, 946 S.W.2d 64 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)